[Debian-ha-maintainers] Bug#738704: Bug#738704: closed by wferi at niif.hu (Ferenc =?UTF-8?Q?W=C3=A1gner?=) (Re: pacemaker: Segfault in libhbclient.so.1.0.0)

[Philipp Marek]

Hi Ferenc,

> >> Pacemaker isn't built with Heartbeat support anymore.  I recommend to
> >> migrate to Corosync 2.
> >
> > That's too bad, because
> >
> >>> I'm using 4 physical network interfaces, so corosync won't do.
> 
> Do you mean that Corosync won't let you use independent links for
> heartbeat and cluster communication?  I think the usual recommendation
> is to bond them, but Corosync also supports this natively under the name
> RRP (redundant ring protocol).  Why doesn't this work for you?
Well, I like to distribute my cluster (and other replication traffic) among 
multiple interfaces.

Yes, of course I can use bonding; and yes, Corosync supports 2 rings.


I'd just like to know why Heartbeat support isn't included anymore... yes, 
it won't do OCFS2 or GFS2, but in exchange it has been rock-solid for me.